Talk:Malcolm Buie Seawell

Potential sources

• Prosecuted James Catfish Cole?
• Lumbee award
• Threatening Klan organizer

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Malcolm Buie Seawell/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 03:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll review this. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   All comments have been addressed.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   No issues.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Sources are properly formatted

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   All sources look reliable for the content they are used for

   C. It contains no original research:

   Spotchecks are clear

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig's tool is clear; spotchecks are clear

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Some slight concern about lack of material covering his ideology, but still meets the GA criterion comfortably, I think. Something to keep in mind if this article were to be taken to FAC.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   No extraneous material

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   All comments have been addressed.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No issues

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   License checks out to the best of my abilities

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   no issues

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Passing shortly.

Comments

• Can a link be found for North Carolina Commissioner of Paroles?
  • We don't have an article on the subject. It appears to be an antiquated institution.
    • Perhaps link "parole", then, to give at least some pointers to unfamiliar readers?
      • Done.
• The source appears to have a date for his marriage.
  • Ah, good catch! Added.
• "professional zoning" could use a little more explanation.
  • Revised.
• More votes in a primary, and such very low vote tallies in general, seems odd; the first of those may not have an explanation, but it might be worth mentioning the town's population, to forestall doubts about the latter.
  • The source does not state the town's population at the time, though Lumberton has I think always been a fairly decently sized one. I don't think the low turnout is actually that unusual; he defeated the incumbent in the primary, so the general election was essentially a formality for him. Lumberton was also a triracial city, and the black population (and possibly the Native American population) certainly wasn't going to the polls in eastern NC in the 1940s.
• Sentence beginning "In the end" could probably be moved one sentence earlier; also I don't know that you need the phrase "In the end".
  • Removed.
• The KKK bit could use a little more context, I think; to the best of my knowledge, the society itself was not illegal at the time, correct? If so, how did Seawall's prosecutions drive them out?
  • Added that it was a white supremacist organization. The KKK was not, I don't think, ever illegal itself in NC, though the many illegal acts its members performed certainly gave them cause for trouble. To be honest I personally don't think Seawell was actually the main reason the KKK left Robeson, I think that had more to do with the 1958 Battle of Hayes Pond and the legal fallout from that, which demonstrated local hostility to the Klan and got a key KKK recruiter time in prison. The particular source that gives the claim that he pushed them out is a well acclaimed one, but is not particularly detailed on this matter. Though I think the fact that Seawell got 12 Klansmen to renounce their ties to the organization speaks for itself in regards to his impact on Klan activity in Robeson County. I just added info on how when a Klan leader criticized the arrest of those men, Seawell penned an open letter daring said Klan leader to appear in Robeson and face arrest. Apparently, this Klan leader never took him up on the offer.
• Could you find a link for racial desegregation in schools? Also, it may not be clear to an unfamiliar reader how closing schools could block this policy; a short explanation would help.
  • Revised.
• Similarly with "token integration efforts"; this sounds like it contradicts the previous sentence, without further context. Are you saying he wasn't really pro-integration, but wanted to follow the letter of the law? Or did he just happen to support what efforts were being made, which happened to be token efforts?
  • Seawell's personal opinions on race remain elusive. Karl E. Campbell says he was a "pragmatic segregationist", which isn't particularly helpful. The "follow the law" mantra is a very consistent theme throughout his career, so he supported integration to the point of satisfying the Supreme Court, but I haven't been able to find out what his views were on segregation as a whole. His objection to the KKK was actually relatively commons among the more moderate conservative leaders of NC at the time, and seems to be rooted in the fact that it was a violent group that operated outside of the law, worsened race relations, and embarrassed the state's image. School integration in NC at the time was governed by the Pearsall Plan, which was essentially a string of token integrations. If NC had adopted a more aggressive plan, I don't know whether or not Seawell would have supported it.
• "Sit-in movement" could also use a tiny bit more context; "sit-in protests" against racial segregation in public places" or something like that...
  • Now the sit-in movement, which protested segregationist business practices
• "kissing a white girl"; the linked article says she kissed them...
  • I've changed it, as you point out that is indeed what happened, though I do believe the reverse was what was initially reported
• The terms "white" and "black" aren't linked anywhere that I can see; can you link them at first mention?
  • Done.
• Link governor of North Carolina at first instance, or wherever most convenient
  • Done.
• The terms "racial liberal" and "racial conservative" are kind of jarring, in 2020...are those really the terms used by contemporary sources?
  • Tyson doesn't use those words, but they are legitimate terms with currency in political science discourse, particularly in the genre of American southern politics ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5])
• "his moderate stance on school desegregation " the "his" is ambiguous; I assume it's Lake, but it could be Seawell
  • Sanford; clarified. Lake ran one of the most racist campaigns in recent NC history.
• "a policy that "The law is to be obeyed."" Without additional context, this seems strange; I'm guessing it's significant because southern governments often wanted to ignore civil rights laws, but explanation would be helpful.
  • The source provides no explicit additional context, though it implies that this is why Seawell declared his intention to abide by the VRA, even if he didn't like it.
• "He resigned on June 24" again, "he" is ambiguous.
  • Clarified.
• "n protest of the withholding of documents" suggests, in editorial voice, that Seawall and not Moore was correct about these; do the sources support this?
  • It is indisputable that documents were withheld; the kerfuffle was over whether they were "relevant". Most sources do indeed seem to side with Seawell on this. He did know, after all, that the SBI kept many documents on KKK activity, because he had full access to those files when he was Attorney General.
• "He resigned on June 24"; would help to add which position this was from.
  • Clarified.
• In general, the information about his ideology is a bit scattered, and the article doesn't deal very directly with the seeming contradictions of supporting the VRA, prosecuting the KKK vigorously, opposing sit-ins, and supporting only token integration. I can understand if the source material is fragmentary that this is the best that's possible, but I wonder if you could take another look at the material with this in mind.
  • That's the downside of having to largely rely on newspaper articles rather than a distilled journal article or book. As for the "seeming contradictions", Seawell's stances weren't foreign to the climate of late 1950s politics in North Carolina. He fit the mold of North Carolina's "Progressive Plutocrats", even if he was unusually vigorous in attacking the KKK for which most of the plutocrats had disdain. Today we tend to view civil rights issue in the Jim Crow South as a struggle between black activists and a small vanguard of liberals verses staunch segregationists, but the differences didn't become that stark until things exploded in the 1960s. Karl E. Campbell, writing on the NC governor's race in 1960 in New Voyages to Carolina: Reinterpreting North Carolina History p. 260 says, "A decade earlier, one of these moderately conservative gentlemen [Larkins and Seawell] would have...moved into the Executive Mansion. But in the new politics of 1960 the middle would not hold." The Brown decision through a wrench into the southern Democrats in the state.

@Vanamonde93: I've responded to your comments. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• • • Everything looks good, passing this shortly. The last point I made above is still a concern, but does not preclude GA status, I think, and as you point out this is a limitation of the source material that not too much can be done about. Nice work. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)